Board Sanctions Contractor for Citing Fake Cases, But Still Rules in Its Favor

A pro se contractor cited four fictitious AI-generated cases in its summary judgment motion, prompting the Board to strike those citations and impose sanctions. Despite this misstep, the Board ruled the contract language ambiguous and decided the underlying warranty dispute in the contractor’s favor.

Appeal of PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLC, ASBCA No. 64164

• Background – The Army awarded the contractor a firm-fixed-price contract to replace a roof system at the Detroit Arsenal. The contract required a roof with 120 mph wind uplift resistance and a 20-year manufacturer’s warranty. After award, the contractor’s proposed membrane manufacturer provided a warranty covering only 90 mph winds. The Army rejected this and required a different manufacturer with a 120 mph warranty. The contractor claimed the contract didn’t require a 120 mph warranty and appealed, seeking reimbursement for delay and extra costs. Both parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the warranty requirement issue.
• AI Hallucinations Trigger Sanctions – The contractor’s motion cited five cases, but four were completely fictitious—apparent AI hallucinations. The Board struck the fictitious citations and unsupported contentions, noting the “blatant disregard” of the contractor’s obligation to verify cases actually exist. The sheer number of errors—80% of citations were fake—warranted sanctions despite the contractor’s pro se status. However, the Board imposed a limited sanction, striking only the fake citations rather than the entire brief.
• Contract Ambiguity – The Board found the contract ambiguous regarding whether the membrane warranty must cover 120 mph winds. One provision required the contractor to “provide revision or amendment to standard membrane manufacturer warranty as required to comply with the specified requirements,” which included 120 mph wind uplift resistance. But another provision stated the warranty must cover damage occurring “in the normal climatic and environmental conditions of the facility.” The government conceded normal conditions don’t include 120 mph winds. These provisions conflict. A reasonable contractor could read the warranty requirement as limited to normal conditions, meaning winds under 120 mph. The government argued the revision requirement wouldn’t make sense unless it mandated exceeding normal conditions. But the Board noted the contract didn’t specify what needed revision in the standard warranty—it could involve cost allocation or other terms, not wind speed
• Ambiguity Favors Contractor – Standard interpretation tools couldn’t resolve the ambiguity. The Board applied contra proferentem, interpreting ambiguities against the drafter (the government). This doctrine only applies to latent ambiguities—subtle contradictions not obvious before award. Here, the contract never expressly stated what wind speed the warranty must cover. The contradiction only became apparent after award when the contractor submitted a 90 mph warranty. A reasonable contractor wouldn’t have recognized the conflict at bid time.

The contractor is represented by Robert M. Pastorelli, Executive Program Manager, appearing pro se. The government is represented by Dana J. Chase, MAJ Joseph Van Dusen, and Carter Cassidy, Army trial attorneys.

—